This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi C.Fred, I do not understand why you undid my edit because I researched and found a reliable site that states that the war was inconclusive. TheNewSMG (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@TheNewSMG: The site does not appear to be reliable. Please show who wrote the article at mapsofindia.com, what sources they cited, and who does editorial review at the site.
Ok, at it then.TheNewSMG (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, the website is made by a company and its directors called Compare Infobase Limited and there is a disclaimer on the site, "Disclaimer: All efforts have been made to make this image accurate. However Compare Infobase Limited and its directors do not own any responsibility for the correctness or authenticity of the same." I am pretty sure the site is accurate and is not a junk site posting lies.
@TheNewSMG: It still doesn't answer the question of who authored the article or what their sources are. (And how is a map site reliable for a historical event, anyway?) If you want, take the matter to WP:RSN for more eyes, but I'm convinced the site is not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia Brittanica has a source that states that the battle was inconclusive. I somehow cannot copy and paste the source and save the edit. TheNewSMG (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
If you look up indianetzone.com and search Battle of Haldighati, the source will pop up.
@TheNewSMG: This is a matter for the editing community to discuss. Please put the relevant links at Talk:Battle of Haldighati and start discussion there. —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Nerduan Valla
This is the second time this article has been created by the same user, and then speedy deleted. Is there something further that can be done to curb this from happening again? Thank you for your time.18abruce (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@18abruce: The title could be salted, but that doesn't always help. I'll keep an eye on the title and user and try to talk to them if they create the page again. —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
And I suppose there is nothing stopping Valla from becoming notable in the future. Thank you.18abruce (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not. If the community decides through discussion to move the DCOM template to DCpfs, then that latter template will have to be temporarily deleted and a history merge conducted. But that will not be done unless there is discussion and a consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ponyo: Thanks for the heads-up. Even if I don't remember who the master is, I'll at least remember it's a sock situation and deal with it accordingly and expediently. —C.Fred (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Airtran Flt 867
C Fred,
I edited Airtran Flt 867's incident report, as it contained incorrect information. I was also an Airtran Captain, and I have in depth knowledge of the Boeing 737, as well as that specific incident. I also heard a recounting of the incident from the Captain involved, and his reasons for turning off the runway toward the hill. I was based in Atlanta for over a decade, and that runway (26L) has a steep downward slope past the end of the runway. It would have been Russian roulette to gamble on the accumulators stopping the aircraft before the end of the runway. Like all airliners, the Boeing 737 can be steered with the rudder as well as hydraulic accumulators for nosewheel steering, so literally, any pilot would know there was no loss of control.
@Skylotus: And where was this recounting published in an on-the-record reliable source? Wikipedia is not the place for original research or first-hand accounts. We can't go with this can't of material that can't be verified. —C.Fred (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Understand.
Skylotus (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Editing Shroud of Turin
There are strong arguments on both side of the issue, when it comes to its authenticity.
However, you seem too dismissive of the view that differs from your own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gscmds (talk • contribs) 02:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Gscmds: There are arguments on both sides of the issue: all the more reason to get consensus before making major changes to the article—especially when you're removing sources from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
TBTA Police
I notice that you indef semi protected Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority Police due to continuing edit wars, and as you claim, sock puppetry. The war has been continuing at MTA Bridges and Tunnels, the parent organization, in the police section. You may wish to do something about it. By the way, semi protection may not be ideal, as one of the parties appears to have an account (GySgtHartman (talk·contribs)), but after a COI warning he seems to have preferred editing logged out instead, except as necessary to get around the protection. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The edit war appears to have flared up again. I may need to take this to WP:COIN (or ANI). – Train2104 (t • c) 06:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Vanessa O'Brien Article
Good day. Is there a way to send you a private message about an issue I am having with other editors on the Vanessa O'Brien article? I was threatened on my Talk page by one of the editors when I tried to correct a wrong on this article last week, and didn't want to list the name(s) of those editors publicly on your talk page if I had a way to send you a message privately. Thank you. Salvatore42 (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Salvatore42: Normally, I would say to take the matter to a talk page. However, I just semi-protected the article because multiple new accounts are adding material that runs afoul of BLP, so I can see where you have concerns that you may want to discuss off-Wiki. You may email me (assuming you've registered an email address for yourself) via the "Email this user" link at left. —C.Fred (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
it is about my son i am new and having a hard time with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by C Deals (talk • contribs) 02:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Reply at your talk page, in the thread about the nomination for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Canada
Canada is objectively located in the northern half of North America. Geometric accuracy is obviously important. The edits I made to the Canada article are objectively constructive. I am the state (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The material you removed yesterday came back. I removed the worst of it but tried to keep a bit, but it needs to work. No objection if you think it should all go. Meters (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Enquiry about ritodrine
Please can you help? How can I edit ritodrine to include the fact that when children reach adolescence they may develop mental health issues? Sorry I'm new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjingjie (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mjingjie: What is your source for this "fact"? —C.Fred (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mjingjie: Medschat is a discussion forum and is not a reliable source. The article by Suaifan et al does not support the claim of developing mental health issues in adolescence. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Is a youtube video link allowed that only shows the side effects on the mother when on ritodrine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjingjie (talk • contribs) 20:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mjingjie: Depends. Who is presenting the video? And if it's only showing side effects on the mother, that does not address effects on the child at all. —C.Fred (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
If I can't mention the effects on the child then so be it but the video can support the side effects on the mother that are already mentioned in wikipedia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKiExFioFBA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjingjie (talk • contribs) 20:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mjingjie: If it's already mentioned, we probably don't need an additional source. And you didn't address the question: who produced or is otherwise responsible for the video? A video on YouTube could come from a number of sources, and many of them aren't reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
It is my video and it is me. I think it is important to show in video what the side effects can be because reading and seeing are two very different things. You want my medical files to prove it? I can provide if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjingjie (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The video would need to come from an independent, reliable source—a TED talk, PBS, the BBC, etc.—before it could be used as a source. —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Wow this is really frustrating. Ok one final question. This is a fact fact promise. Can we include that the medication was designed to be used for a short period of time (days). I can find the relevant link again. You see people are being put on this medication for months but it was designed for just days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjingjie (talk • contribs) 21:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I cannot speak for C.Fred, but this is my personal opinion. If a drug was designed to be used for days only, but people are being put on it for months, then this is a major problem and you should immediately report it to the appropriate authorities. Immediately! Wikipedia is not an apppropriate authority, so please do not report it here. Please focus your efforts on the people responsible for solving the problem. MPS1992 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mjingjie: Maybe. According to what reliable sources was it only to be used for days, and according to what reliable sources are people being put on it for months? Basically, it has to be happening often enough for reliable sources to document it. Also, when we're talking about medicine, the sourcing rules get stricter: WP:MEDRS comes into play.
Yes, it feels like a frustrating process. However, consider that all of these hoops, safeguards, and double-checks exist because people have put bad information into articles in the past. It's a pain, yes, but it's a necessary evil. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The 5th Records
Hello, I was just wondering why in particular the page "The 5th Records" was taken down, and what process went into you making that decision. Thank you!
@John Hopkins23: It was taken down because there was no assertion of significance or importance about the company. The process is described at WP:CSD. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
UGA football national titles
It's been over 3 years since you posted in the talk feed so I thought I would shoot you a message since I spotted it. I rev a pic of the University Football practice facility showing the two claimed national titles and a media mentioning the other three not claimed. I created an Unclaimed nat'l titles into the info box to fit with other football wikis. Just wanted you to know since I saw your name on the talk page about this.KillerFrosty (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Corporate soccer
Hi C.Fred, thank you for your input. I appreciate it. It's obviously my first attempt at doing this, so naturally I will screw up. But, if you don't mind, allow me to ask you to edit my content. Let me know what I need to make sure the article is well written and well documented. I can forward you some news articles that have been written about our federation (FIFCO) and our role in the federation. Again, thank you for your help.
C.Fred - I did not see this as a self promotion. The CCSL is a national league, with players, teams and other. In my description, I never mentioned how to sign up, nor how to participate. In fact, I stated the facts of what the league does, where it plays its games, the amount of players and our international affiliations. Seeing your comment, did you actually read the article I posted? Is it mostly that my user name is the same as the league that bothers you?
@CorporateSoccer: The user name is the red flag that screams conflict of interest. As far as the actual article, I read it and found that it made no assertion that the league is any more notable than any other league of amateur teams. Rec leagues, Sunday leagues, and the like all generally get culled by CSD A7.
Also, please sign your message by adding four tilde characters, not four hyphens. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, this is clear. I get it now. But with all due respect, corporate league is not in the same category as a sunday rec league, nor any beer league. The corporate teams, of the like of Apple, Ubisoft, PwC etc, all compete at city, national and international levels. We are affiliated to an international organisation that promotes the game, the teams and the championships. There is world cup associated to it. I have never seen a rec league at this level before. The international federation has articles about them, but in foreign languages, does this help?
@CorporateSoccer: Who has written the articles about the international federation? Sources don't have to be in English, but they really do need to be independent. And really, that's what the article(s) need: there needs to be some independent coverage to show what corporate soccer is and why it occupies a realm that would make it notable per WP:NFOOTY. —C.Fred (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
IP evading block?
Hi C.Fred, I think one of the IPs that you reverted the edits of on L.A. Love (La La), one of the 24.41.xxx.xxx range, returned with the IP 107.77.215.181. They restored their edits there and on several other pages. Ss112 00:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey again, I've found the same IP now using 107.77.215.24. Ss112 11:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like one of the IPs is back restoring their edits using 24.41.228.188. Ss112 13:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The latest appears to be 107.77.215.126. Binksternet reverted their edits earlier. Ss112 20:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Zhangj1079: It looks like the article is in the right place per the requested move discussion. I've moved the talk page to catch up with the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks! Zhangj1079 (T|C) 16:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
john cosgrove gaa page
hi there, you very helpfully redirected the above page. however john cosgrove is better known as a referee and a teacher than he is for his days playing gaelic football here in mayo. i personally think john cosgrove gaa is a better page title. what do you think? if you agree can you change it back to "John Cosgrove GAA" thanks gerry Rochwick (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Rochwick: No, that violates WP:MOSDAB. GAA is not a postnomial, and we don't usually disambiguate by postnomials anyway. I can agree that "Gaelic football" may be better than "Gaelic footballer", so I'll move it to that. —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
thank you. i'm new to wikipedia so i don't really understand that but it sounds great. thank you so much for your help. gRochwick (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Can you revdel the edits from Rylyn123 to this page; they're completely copied from this page. I tagged the talk page for deletion also, as it's identical. Home Lander (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
His user talk page also has a copy in the history. Home Lander (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@Home Lander: Article talk page deleted; article and user talk revdeled. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
More than a personal attack
Hi C.Fred. It's racist and anti-Semitic in one distasteful fell swoop [1]. Many of us are inclined to chafe when someone reverts an edit, but this is something else. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
That's why I rpa'ed the comments on the talk page. I'm also waiting to see what his next action is...but I won't be surprised if it draws a block. —C.Fred (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Understood. I'd block for that alone. It doesn't hurt that it follows a spate of edit warring, and the appearance of multiple accounts there. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I haven't seen any instances of socking. —C.Fred (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah. Yesterday/Friday. I see it now. —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Clarification and Feedback
C.Fred
I keep trying to re-edit Fred Hampton but I noticed you keep reverting the edits. I really want to make a clarification and further explain. Please I am trying to re-edit for the sake of further giving justice to the legacy of Fred Hampton. In the initial opening paragraph, it says that the Chicago Tribune reported the case as being a result of a "wild gun battle". This is NOT the case, that's why I keep trying to say that the story was falsely fabricated. Secondly, at the end of the paragraph, it begins to suggest that Fred Hampton's death was justified.. And then it says that a civil lawsuit resulted in a resettlement. I'm saying that some people might not know that terminology, and I'm trying to re-edit and say maybe even leave that part out. Why even suggest that it was a justified death, it was not at all. And I'm trying to emphasize that by re-editing a few parts to give the proper elaboration. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayymach15 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jayymach15: The problem was the tone. By labeling the reporting as "incorrect", it made it look like you were trying to introduce a bias to the article. I've let your most recent edits stand, but be careful with tone in future edits. —C.Fred (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Zachary Grixti
Looks like the creator of Zachary Grixti is still doing that page and has a possible duck account on it now. Wgolf (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Please do not delete the page
No brother that he works by writing books in the periods not to write books Balkleh and others [3]Khaledsalah (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
This is an official page for a journalist, author and author [4]
This is his page goodreads [5]
This book has been authored On the world famous site goodreads [6]
The sources I wrote about
[7][8][9][10][11]Khaledsalah (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Khaledsalah: Sorry, but just having a page on Goodreads does not make an author significant. —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
But it is a book written by the name of the top men
All the sources here are my dear brother Nader mohamedKhaledsalah (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Khaledsalah: Nothing on that page shows me any reason why the author is significant. —C.Fred (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
And then you claimed he had a PhD from Glasgow University by age 13. Game over, article deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
My brother Azay is not one author, a journalist, political critic and the director of the largest real estate companies in Egypt attended you. And I attended you with sources in all the Arab and foreign sites [12] And in some sources to his book about the journalist Nader Mohammed
Khaledsalah (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Khaledsalah: So, wait, you admit you mixed multiple people into the article? —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am a writer, journalist, writer and manager of a large real estate company in Egypt, and all this is mentioned by my brother Proof of that
And the proof that I am the author of books [13]
The proof is that I am a journalist [14] , [15][16]Khaledsalah (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Khaledsalah: Sorry, but web pages written by your brother are not reliable sources. And you really should not write an article about yourself. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
permission of new page.
i request to create a new page. RaashikhannaDHFR (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@RaashikhannaDHFR: What is the new page about, and will it comply with Wikipedia policies, including WP:Notability? —C.Fred (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thnks for editing [[[Mahesh 25]] thnks.. RaashikhannaDHFR (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@RaashikhannaDHFR: You do realize that article is on a course to get deleted for failing WP:NFF, right? —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I have created a page.
Please check this to see what I have done right. RaashikhannaDHFR (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@RaashikhannaDHFR: The page was already speedy deleted, and I agree with the admin. He's an actor who has a cameo appearance in one film and is speculated to appear in a second. This is by no means an assertion that he is a significant or important actor. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
One of the Contributors of deleted page Studio 54' is attacking pages i have created
Hello,
A sockpuppet of the creator of recently deleted page "Studio 54' " is going after pages i have created and tagging it with db-author. User is TundejoshuaZazzysa (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ukpong1: Already warned them for it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
New User Keeps Removing Speedy Deletion Tag from Victoria Thorpe
Hello C.Fred,
I recently reviewed a page ( Victoria Thorpe ) created by a new user about herself and tagged for deletion but user keeps removing deletion template even after being warned. I have reverted twice and will no longer revert until an admin takes action. Thanks in advance. The same thing is applicable to Studio 54' and i suspect same user created new account for the sole purpose of removing speedy delete tag Zazzysa (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
oops I'm sorry I hadn't realised I wasn't allowed to :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictoriaThorpeArt (talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of autobiography
Hi Fred I did contest but was not given an answer it was just deleted please can you shed some light as to why Anne Stokes has a biography page yet I am not allowed one? How do I write one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictoriaThorpeArt (talk • contribs) 20:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@VictoriaThorpeArt: There is enough of an assertion of significance that Stokes' article is going through the proposed deletion process. There was no assertion of significance at all in your article; that's why it was speedy deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for finally explaining the matter of the autobiography matter for the page Michael Taillard. This page is not an autobiography. We made a wiki account in the memory of this individual, as he has contributed greatly to the field in a very short time span but does not have much longer to contribute as a result of a neurological disorder resulting from medical complications caused by a severe acid burn.
Please, if anything, we ask for your support in editing this article to the degree that it will be deemed acceptable on Wikipedia so that their visionary contributions will be accessible to those outside the field of behavioral economics.
@Mtaillard: Well, one of the problems is your username. It violates WP:Username policy because it is confusing and implies you are Taillard.
Second, even though it's not an autobiography, there is still a conflict of interest issue. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. We do apologize for the username issue. We were not aware that this was a policy. Is there some way you can assist with that matter? Do you have recommendations? The article was not written or published by Michael, and we don't want our own oversight to become a problem.
Can you please specify the matter of conflict of interest? What is the specific conflict of interest to which you refer? If there is some aspect of the article that presents a conflict of interest, we will change it.
@Mtaillard: You identified yourself as a friend and colleague of Taillard. Coworkers, family members, friends, employees, agents, managers, etc. all have a conflict of interest because they know the subject of the article. There is nothing you can do to change the article; however, independent editors can review the article and determine that the text is free of bias. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your prompt and helpful responses. Would it be asking too much for your personal assessment of what can be improved within the article? I assure you that no advertisement was intended. The guy can't even work since the accident, so what would be the point of advertising? Notability is definitely not an issue, either. During his short period, he wrote several highly influential books, fundamentally changed the paradigm of international capital allocations, taught at graduate schools in the US and China, and spearheaded research into groundbreaking medical research using financial metrics. How much more notability does a person need?
In any case, if you would give us a more specific review of what needs to be changed, we would greatly appreciate it. His work was revolutionary but published for other experts. The public deserves to know.
In my experience, any editor whose rationale for an aritcle is "the public deserves to know" is conceding that there's not enough written about the subject to pass WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, but Michael worked for other professionals to improve their work. He was not very publicly visible, but was very influential in the field. Even if you disagree with that, can we agree that the "advertisement" warning is unwarranted? At the very least, can that be removed?
Agreed on that. Any more would take more copyediting than I have time for tonight. (And please sign your talk page posts.) —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about the signatures. Still learning. In any case, I noticed you made a couple minor edits today. Were there any issues you found regarding violations of a "neutral point of view"? There have been a large volume of changes made by Wiki editors and members of the public, so I'm not entirely sure exactly what changes have been made anymore, myself. If you have found something, please let me know so that I can change it. If these changes have resolved any matters, then can the warning be removed? Mtaillard (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mtaillard: If independent editors have been changing the article but haven't removed the tag, that means they may have concerns. I'll check in with them later on at the article's talk page.
In a COI situation, sometimes the best thing to do is for you not to make the changes, but to let independent editors make them. You can request a change by posting at the article's talk page. Specify what you what changed and what published reliable source supports the change. —C.Fred (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to help "the new guy". As for the COI concern, I do not personally see anything that needs to be changed. However, should you find something, by all means feel free to alter it. I would much rather improve the quality of the page then let it sit with some problem in it, much less risk the entire page being deleted. If you do not see anything that presents a conflict of interest, then I look forward to seeing that warning removed, but the quality of the page is, of course, the highest priority. Mtaillard (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@C.Fred The matter of the image ownership has been resolved, as Taillard's wife (who took the picture) has acknowledged ownership and approved for its free usage and distribution. In addition, I have found yet more outside citations which improve notability. You can find them on the page's Talk page. I will wait for you to address them and include them to the article, as you recommended. Mtaillard (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mtaillard: Where has she acknowledged ownership? Is it on a webpage somewhere, or did she directly email the Volunteer Response Team or Commons? —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mtaillard: Yes, and the sequence of events there has pretty much proven to me that you have a conflict of interest. If you can call up the subject's wife, you've got a connection. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@C.Fred That has already been established. I never denied I knew them. I acknowledged before that Taillard is a colleague of the people who put together his article. As the warning says, "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." So, the real question is whether or not there is anything in the article that actually violates the "neutral point of view". Since the original creation of the article, several people totally unknown to Michael or myself have made significant changes, and if they improve the quality of the article then that's great. If there is something in the article that needs cleanup, then let's clean it up. If not, then give credit where it is due and remove the warning. Mtaillard (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
problematicdrafting
Hi there,
I have been trying to include information about Direct Selling Europe's wikipedia page and I have to disagree about your last deletion, based on another user's mentioning of plagiarism. The last information that I wrote on the page is not plagiarism as it only includes some information mentioned in DSE's website (such as statistics in Europe), and always with a different drafting.
How can I solve this?
Many thanks
When the same material keeps coming back with only minor tweaks, it keeps getting removed. —C.Fred (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Meters: I just redirected a half-dozen new creations and left a message to knock it off. We'll see what he does next. —C.Fred (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi C.Fred. I am attempting to correct misinformation about my late husband Tobe Hooper.
That's all I want to do.
His name is Willard and everyone keeps changing it to William
He has one son, William Tony Hooper
and the press and media keep saying William Hooper and Tony Hooper are 2 people.
There is a William Hooper, sound editor that Google keeps saying is a relation, but he is not a relation. And he is also working with me trying to get Google to disassociate his name from the Tobe Hooper clan and All American Massacre.
That's why I keep correcting it. It's not because I am partial or one-sided. It's because I want his legacy to be accurate.
If you need me to fax in marriage certificates, death certificates, let me know where.
Thank you
Rmbart (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@Rmbart: Even if you're keeping neutral tone and sticking to what's in published sources, you've declared that you have a conflict of interest in the topic. —C.Fred (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@C.Fred: I understand. I'll leave it to you guys then. Thx. Rmbart (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
YGM
Hello, C.Fred. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Marchjuly (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@331dot: Yeah, especially since the text is just about identical. —C.Fred (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Itslider
Dear Fred, i created a page for user itslider i picked that username but we are a product no user. How can i make a page describing a invention that has to be coined here. We have worked 12 month in secrecy on this i have to document the time stamp of today. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itslider (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Sir it is not about promoting a product. It is a patented tool and we are coining the term MicroSport. It doesnt exist on wikipedia. I have to coin the term Micro Sport in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itslider (talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Itslider: Wikipedia is not the place to blatantly promote your product. That's what it looks like your account and the article you're attempting the page are here to do. —C.Fred (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not blatently promoting a product i even updated the page. I like to describe the sport i invented. I am an inventor not a marketer. Can i get any support form wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itslider (talk • contribs) 00:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
So if i coin a new sport it is not something i can write into wikipedia. How did everything then get into wikipedia? I can find everything in the world in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itslider (talk • contribs) 00:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Itslider: Because the notable topics already existed, and independent editors wrote about it based on published reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Then please link me to something that is called it. slider or Micro Sports. You are telling the untruth above saying that it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itslider (talk • contribs) 00:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Itslider: I didn't say it doesn't exist. I said you created it and appear to be trying to promote it. I don't think I said it, but I also think it's not a notable sport—at least, unless you can provide newspaper or magazine coverage of it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Fine, I will follow up in two weeks after launch. I am very upset by your analysis. Thank you Goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itslider (talk • contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Itslider: Sorry, but you'll find that my analysis is totally in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
it was my first day on wikipedia and i already don't like it. do what you need to we are a legit company it. LLC and a news source itstudios.com the rest you will
learn from media. I dont think i will ever return to wikipedia. Good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B021:C7EB:5DD:820:F965:8A89 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Theroadislong: We're down to the situation of one mainspace and one draft. I'm discussing with the OE, at their talk page and Talk:Shawn faqua, about how to proceed.
Also, what's your analysis on why CSD A7 applies to the article? —C.Fred (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Apologies I hadn't noticed the nomination for AMAA though this does need sourcing. Theroadislong (talk)
@Theroadislong: I just chased a source. I had concerns that the claim of the award might not be credible; however, since it's been chased to a news source, I'm removing the speedy tag. There's still a lot of cleanup needed. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
That was only a nomination though, not an award? Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Theroadislong: But nomination for a major grade award. It's enough that I think A7 doesn't apply, though the AfD process could still be started. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Coastermaniac
Just letting you know the you don't really need to warn Coastermaniac, as I have already reported them as a VOA. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Tornado chaser: Usually, even a VOA gets at least one warning, although sometimes it's {{uw-vandalism4im}}. Only when it's extreme vandalism or a sockpuppet do I block without warning. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Here[17] I had another editor tell me otherwise, I thought if someone just makes an account and immediately makes multiple vandalisms they are blocked immediately, is there some rule against reporting these accounts with no warning? (I have reported dozens and they have all been blocked). Tornado chaser (talk)
@Tornado chaser: That example fell in the category of extreme vandalism. There are a few words that, if they're used in the vandalism, I'll block first and ask questions later. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Can you please give me -time- to finish my own edits before you make yours? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciBLSRA (talk • contribs) 00:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Ugh... still getting used to this.. That was from me, about the time. I'm dyslexic and need to go slow. LuciBLSRA (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Fred, I'm having trouble formatting the Biblio. I'm attempting to make it look similar to the Bibliography on Fannie and Freddie Mac on Wiki but also keep some of the formatting of the original article on SSRN so it's easy to read. Are there any quick guides to formatting? I thought I understood it, but I keep getting weird stuff. LuciBLSRA (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@LuciBLSRA: Or just leave it a bit, and other editors will jump in with formatting and cleanup. —C.Fred (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I hate to leave it a mess. My mom always told me if I am going to do something, do my best. So I'm trying. I'll keep puttering. Hopefully I'll figure it all out. LuciBLSRA (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to leave it. It's very frustrating to work on a few bits only to have that bit destroyed because someone else came around and decided to willy nilly remove whatever without first reaching out to me. Most frustrating part is that the parts I wasn't working on were left alone and the bits that were supposedly horrible for the article are still there in them. Not you. But you know. I'm just so tired. My eyes hurt from attempting to format without going crosseyed. Thank you for your attempt to help and the link to the pages on formatting Biblios. I'll keep reading and maybe try to make the page pretty later. After a rest spell. LuciBLSRA (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Why did you block me?
C. Fred,
I am new to Wikipedia and am not aware that I was using any copyrighted material. Perhaps you can tell me what was copyrighted, because I am unaware of it. You said I was blocked on my talk page and I notice that when I try to even ask for an unblock on my talk page I just get the notice that I'm blocked.
When I try to put in an "unblock" request, it says I'm not blocked. JPGordon says I have never been blocked. Since I'm new to Wikipedia I don't know what to do. I have learned that I must go to the William M. Branham talk page before I can get anything changed.
Please give me a reason why you blocked me and I'll try to conform. Also, I don't know how to request this block be removed. Will you please help me?Danpeanuts (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Danpeanuts (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2017
Hi @Danpeanuts: (Non-administrator comment) As of now, you are indeed never blocked. You mentioned that you received a notice that you might be blocked for continuing what you were doing, but those are warnings that tell you to stop your actions, not actual blocks. You may have accidentally used the {{unblock}} template yourself for whatever reason. The procedural decline reason is that you are indeed never blocked. Also this is the block log for your account, as you can see it's blank, which means you have never been blocked here. As a result, you can still edit articles, as long as in a constructive way and follow the rules. Good luck. -★-PlyrStar93. →Message me. 🖉← 13:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Danpeanuts: I agree with PlyrStar93's assessment. Your account has not been blocked. It does appear that a number of your edits have fallen short of requirements to verify them with reliable sources. It also appears that your edits were in matters to which WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies; a forum post and a primary source will almost never be sufficient for the required sourcing in one of those areas. The material would have to be covered in independent, peer-reviewed, scholarly sources before it could be included in the article. Again, you aren't blocked from editing the article; however, other editors have reviewed your edits, found that they don't meet the WP:Verifiability policy, and reverted them. Your next course of action in such situations is to discuss on the article's talk page to see if some way can be found to address their concerns and get your edits to comply with policy. —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The Rub
See edit history. Article hijacked several years ago and no one noticed. This other entity is not notable and doesn't have any reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goalpostsback (talk • contribs) 21:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Goalpostsback: Yep, I found where the topic flip happened. I've unwound the two articles; the LA band is now at the title The Rub (US band). —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Politsi: You needed to update the source in the article that you changed. You left that source intact while changing the claim supported by it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Insertcleverphrasehere. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Jennifer Koranteng, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
@InsertCleverPhraseHere: Thank you for reminding me that I never got back to it after the courtesy wait. I've deleted it. —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
I wanna recreate the jace norman and isabella morners page pls reply quicckly Egbodo huddy (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Egbodo huddy: No. They are not significant, neither individually nor together. —C.Fred (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The person who made Sufi Rock Band
The guy who made Sufi Rock Band I believe is a promotional account, have already reverted a couple of his edits, don't feel like going through every one though! Wgolf (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Wgolf: I'm looping my way back to that user. I've got a half-dozen tabs open on Wikipedia, plus I'm dealing with weather-related work issues. —C.Fred (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, good spot on the page creator's name as well. A CU had been run on the listed accounts in the above link and these accounts were not detected, but I'm guessing they are connected. I have another pending request for CU here; if you know of a CU who is currently online, now would probably be a good time for it. Home Lander (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Home Lander: They also showed similarity to User:Hendrix Adi Surya; that was the smoking gun that I blocked ANT for. Not sure about the other account yet. —C.Fred (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm... I hadn't heard of that one before, and the username sort of has a familiar ring to it, seems like it could be connected to the LTA I listed above. Interesting... Home Lander (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Jakarta is a Province (there is no Jakarta City)
Have you read this Discussion page about my explanation of the "Provinceness" of Jakarta rather than a city? - NouVa (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@NouVa: I have, and I see no other support yet for your position. I will monitor the discussion and see what happens. However, leave the article as it was before your change (see WP:BRD) until consensus to change emerges. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
" leave the article as it was before " or do you mean " leave the Hoax as it is, and let the others misled " ? - NouVa (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@NouVa: There are plenty of reliable sources that say it's a city. That hardly means it's a hoax. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@C.Fred: What do you mean by saying "There are plenty of reliable sources that say (Jakarta) it's a city" If you sure about abundance sources, can you give me, at least, ten reliable sources supporting your opinion that Jakarta is a city? - NouVa (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@C.Fred: However, I can only visit three references that you give, the rest are dead links. Furthermore, your references mostly came from various media sources that have been misled for years, not from the official government source, such as this website (Portal Resmi Provinsi DKI Jakarta, The Official Portal of Province of DKI Jakarta). So, which is the right one? which is the hoax? various media that have been following the "old misconception" or the official source from the government itself? Honestly, I just do not want to let public believe about a false statement - NouVa (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@NouVa: I visited all those links this morning; it may have been that I copied the links over from Google and that brought in stray characters. At any rate, there's ten within the first page or two of search results. I think that shows that there are ample sources that say, whatever else Jakarta may be, it's a city.
Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. It's starting to sound like your edits are less about following the Wikipedia policy of verifiability and more about advancing an agenda. You're welcome to take the matter up at the talk page and see if there's support for your desired changes, but you cannot make them unilaterally. —C.Fred (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Viphexa
Before delete the page you should let me know the actual reason. Other are saying that no any content like promotion in page. Then why are you deleted? If you feel happy to delete the page, then i can provide you many pages they have links broken and like advertisement. Please provide strongest reson and word you saw like promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chir49 (talk • contribs)
@Chir49: The article was deleted because no assertion of the signifcance or importance of the company was made. See WP:CORP. —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why some like advertise and some are telling that there is not any content like advertisement. There are many page that are not to be on wikipedia but still exist. And i had also linked references with the article but i think you are dumb
Other stuff exists. The article you created was flagged as inappropriate. While it wasn't promotional, it still qualified for speedy deletion under another guideline. If you'd like to continue to discuss this civilly, I'm willing to explain more. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Please retrieve the page
Azay Akhi is a famous person, author, journalist and some sourcesKhaledsalah (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I want to retrieve the article brother Please I am tired where one of the people who are based on Wikimedia Commons edit my page will be supported with the EncyclopediaKhaledsalah (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Khaledsalah:WP:BIO is an English Wikipedia policy; it has nothing to do with Commons, nor can people from Commons "support your page". —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Please try to retrieve the page and what errors are correctedKhaledsalah (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Khaledsalah: The problem is, there is no clear, credible assertion that Mohamed is a significant or important person. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
There are sources that put his official image inside the articlesKhaledsalah (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Khaledsalah: What do you mean by his "official image"? —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Your presence says that some sites invite someone else how someone else they talk about someone famous author such as Nader Mohammed and some sites put his image by the article and some reliable news sources talking to him at the headquarters of the newspaper and put a picture of their news to be the real person and not someone elseKhaledsalah (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Khaledsalah: I'm still not convinced he's notable. I've put it to the wider community for discussion via the AfD process. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Saudin edit
Hi Fred! Very new to this wikipedia editing, kind of confusing.
@TeamSaudin: You'll need to provide some reliable sources that show that the subject is now known professionally as Saudin. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
How about the album covers of his last two project releases? Or links to his iTunes/Spotify artist profiles? His twitter/instagram/facebook page names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamSaudin (talk • contribs) 17:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@TeamSaudin: Album covers are starting to get there. Better would be the iTunes listing. The question would then become, by what name is he best known? It may be that his acting career takes precedence, so the article stays at its current name. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Consider that Pigeons and Planes still refers to him by his full name. —C.Fred (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@TeamSaudin: "To be known". Meaning, he isn't already commonly known as that. We don't change the article title for every iteration of a stage name (points toward the Sean Combs article). —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Excerpt from the podcast beginning at 5:51
Host: So, Saudin? AJ Saudin? What is it? What’s the Saudin, AJ Saudin? Seems like -
Saudin: So it’s just Saudin.
Host: Saudin.
Saudin: Yeah it’s just like you know just drop the AJ it’s just straight Saudin.
Host: And that’s the family name?
Saudin: That’s my last name and I’m actually like the last boy Saudin, so I’m trying to carry on the legacy as much as I possibly can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamSaudin (talk • contribs) 17:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@TeamSaudin: I've added the professional name to the intro. However, I'm not convinced, between the disambiguation issue and the question of what he's most commonly known as, that we should move the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, please sign your talk page posts! It disrupts the flow to have SineBot have to add your signature while I'm trying to reply. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
That's alright for now I suppose. Thank you. Testing signage, hope this works TeamSaudin (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Block evasion and continued edits by 24.41.228.188
Hi C.Fred. An IP you blocked two weeks ago for block evasion, 24.41.228.188, is now back and restoring their edits to the pages they were reverted on. Ss112 01:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
My Talk page/tempelate
There was absolutely no reason to delete because rule G3 has nothing to do with this. I was just simply making my table of Big Brother with my own cast and evictions but thanks to you all my hard work is gone. This took me 3 hours to complete so it would be kind of you to return my information and so I can continue what my time was spent on. Jayden275722023 (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jayden275722023: Sorry, but no. Wikipedia is not a webhost. It is not a repository for your made-up casts. Frankly, you're not the first person to do this, and I'm not the first administrator to have deleted a page such as this. —C.Fred (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Yes there have been other similar pages created by accounts with Jayden usernames such as these deleted by CambridgeBayWeather. You'd think this person would understand by now that such pages are simply not going to be allowed, and will be deleted when found. Moreover, they keep adding non-free content to their userpages, even though that also keeps getting removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks CambridgeBayWeather and C.Fred for dealing with this. I'm sure they'll be back since being blocked hasn't stopped them so far. If you're reading this Jayden275722023 or whatever account you're currently using, you should try Wikia or another free wiki service because those seem to be more suitable for what you want to post and fantasy BB content is going to continue to be deleted from Wikipedia whenever it's found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Uk veterans and people's party page
Bit of a noob but have been asked to rectify errors on the page with regard to incorrect logo...and minor changes to the party structure Ukvandppmerch (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ukvandppmerch: Be careful with your editing, because of your conflict of interest. Also, your username may be questionable, because it appears you're involved in merchandising for the party. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Beth Barr
C. Fred -- I'm about as close as a primary source as you are going to get. I'd really like to see my LONG TIME ex-husbands name off my wikipedia page. Do I need to send you a divorce decree? A wedding certificate? My driver's license? Please tell me what I need to do so I can take control of my own biography. Thank you. ZippityDooDah (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@ZippityDooDah: First, you cannot control the article. You may request an edit at the talk page, but you must provide published, secondary sources to support your claims. A driver's license, divorce degree, or wedding certificate are unacceptable. Second, you really may not edit the article at all, since you claim to be the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Response and Thank you!
Hello C. Fred,
Thank you for your response to my edit; and for your guidance on this. Info removed was no longer contemporary in nature, and I did employ the reason for edit box/section. I'm very sorry if this was not seen or otherwise picked up! This is the paragraph in question:
In 2008, a profile in The Palm Beach Post on Newsmax and founder Ruddy indicated the company generated revenues of approximately $25 million per year, and, according to the company, has been profitable for the past five years. In a 2009 Forbes.com interview, Internet expert Nathan Richardson was asked to identify the "smartest thing on the web" today. Richardson identified Newsmax, among several websites, citing its success "monetizing the web."[8]
Thank you.
Dulcamara1 (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Dulcamara1
Nick Bougas
Oh dear. Not sure this guy can take a hint. Home Lander (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Home Lander: Yeah. That's why I just left a notice on his page about 3RR. This isn't one of those cases where the changes to the article were pure fluff; that's why I didn't just roll all the way back. I want the community to help refine what's been done to the article, but removing tags hurts that process. I don't think a block will help the situation, but given the level of incivility, it's starting to look like the lesser of the evils. —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks for your composure handling this. Home Lander (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
My, what a stress-filled job you Wikipedestrians must have. Being made to fret and feverishly convene like stammering schoolgirls when the subject of one of your profiles takes exception to being called 'pretentious" and "self promoting" by one of your unimaginative tribe. Sorry to have rattled your composure, ladies, but y'see I hail from a time long ago when a site like yours would actually graciously welcome the input and insights of a featured subject. As your corporate nightmare machine fueled by litigation fears and bean-counting lackeys lumbers soullessly forward, you've left something very valuable in your dust. The human element. Simple consideration and gratitude for the efforts of someone who's trying to add some quality to your uninspired and vacuous standard presentation. You're now sitting there ringing your hands like the world is ending because I called you on viciously hacking the brief and informative bio I supplied down to a splinter and then complaining in your tag box that it still needs extensive work when there's NOTHING LEFT TO WORK ON. Pardon me if I find your screeching and flailing a tad excessive over a bio that consists of THREE STODGY SENTENCES. I'm officially asking you here and now to leave the current page alone, as criminally spartan as it is, and quit marring the appearance with ugly tag boxes with meaningless alarm text, or else just remove the whole page, which is utterly fine with me. From what I've seen of your ridiculous behaviors and attitudes, I don't want to be associated with your silly enterprise. Frankly, I don't know how I wound up on sticky Wiki in the first place. I certainly never solicited or campaigned for inclusion ... and I have good reason to suspect that there's more than a smidgen of "agenda" going on with all the incessant harassment I've faced since my first post but, alas, that's the current trend ... the conditions that prevail, as they say. At any rate. Kindly use your noodles to find a way to leave the bio page alone or pull it once and for all. It's that simple. From the heart of my bottom, Nick Bougas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megerflit (talk • contribs) 22:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
The edit does not contain incorrect information. While the article does not mention Spillman, the story for Abilene FD) references issues with a new Spillman system that was used to replace an aging Zetron system. The story states that the issue is with Spillman, the story states that Spillman is being sued. The link gives the impression that Zetron is the issue when that is incorrect.RollsKanardly (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
RollsKanardly (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)RollsKanardly Sep. 21, 2017
@RollsKanardly: The title of the cited source article does not mention Spillman. You changed the reference to indicate it does. That's clearly introducing an error into an easily-verifiable item (the title of the cited source). —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The reference was changed back and I understand why it was. The title also does not mention Zetron. Makes the reference a little misleading. RollsKanardly (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@RollsKanardly: It's the text in the reference that really matters, not the title. That said, if the title were really problematic, we'd insert a quote to go along with the title. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Please help
I am not trying to violate Michael Bair page I am just trying to create my page which is Michael Hernandez. Michael Bair and Michael Hernandez are two diferent person and as you see Michael Bair is redirecting My name Michael Hernandez to his page and that is not fair, because his name is Michael Bair not Michael Hernandez I am the real Michael Hernandez and he is Michael Bair please help me to create my page.
@Mhmusik: I reviewed the page you attempted to create at Michael Hernandez, and there is no evidence that you are either significant or important. Rather than speedy delete the page you created, I turned it back to a redirect.
Really, you should not create a page about yourself at all. If you want a page created for you, you need to show that you meet WP:NMUSIC and that reliable sources document your notability. —C.Fred (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
someone arbitrarily has removed a very large chunk of data from the Dallas, TX page that has existed for a very, very long time
Fred C.
We exchanged some communications a few months ago about an update that I performed to the Dallas, TX page concerning the employment data. We resolved that very easily once I explained the text update was being made based on the links always reflecting the latest data and new links did not need to be made. You can go to the page and see where we discussed that.
I have invested a great deal of time over the last few days updating that same section of the Dallas, TX page that you and I discussed back several months ago. Today, out of the clear blue, someone takes exception to it and arbitrarily deletes a huge section of data. I reverted it back and he then did the same thing and so forth. I am now at 3 reverts and cannot change it. He has now enlisted the help of one of his buddies to have yet another person delete all of that data that I have labored so hard to gather, document, update and provide appropriate citations and so forth to the text.
Will you please help me? Can you please put it back to what I had and lock that part of the page from any further arbitrary deletes while this is being resolved?
Please, I spent a great deal of time to make the data current, correct and to annotate everything correctly to now see someone who doesn't apparently like the fact that Dallas has eclipsed Houston in several categories make arbitrary deletes and get someone else to back it up by doing it again (knowing that if I do I may be banned because it would be my 3 revert).
Please help me!
Texan44 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC) September 23, 2017
See this at WP:ANI, Texan44's talk page, and the page history of Dallas. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Texan44: I see Thomas.W's concern about the text, that it relates to the entire Metroplex and not just Dallas, so the Dallas article is not the best place for it. I would suggest that you discuss why you think it's appropriate for the Dallas article at Talk:Dallas. It's possible it should be moved to the article on the Metroplex, it's possible it should stay in Dallas, or it's possible it shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all—but the best thing to do at this point is get a wider range of inputs about what to do with it. The talk page is the best place to do that, but if you get yourself blocked for edit warring, you won't be able to participate. —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Fred, the data is not new, it was not being expanded, it was merely being updated. The whole paragraph is prefaced by the fact that Dallas is the central economy in the region and the data that follows is only available as an MSA form of data. If the update has upset someone because of the data, then just put it back to the old version and let it be. This is crazy that merely updating existing text with current released data is creating this. I do not know how to start a discussion on the Talk:Dallas board or I would do so. I think what this is telling me is there are very petty people who cannot tolerate data that is not what they want it to be.Texan44 (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Texan44: It doesn't matter that the data is just being updated. Somebody has a good-faith objection to its inclusion on the page at all. You need to assume good faith in them as well and not call them "petty". And you posted a comment here, so you can certainly start a thread at Talk:Dallas. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The reason they gave to me that they didn't like it was that I "expanded" the data ... I didn't expand it was updated. And I have updated this section off and on for a very long time and never had anyone object, until now. And I believe it is a safe assumption that it was the actual content of this latest update that is the basis for this this time. As mentioned, I have been updating this section of the article for a very, very long time with population, GDP, etc. and until today it has not bother a single party. So today, a single party takes exception to it and now "poof" it all gone. This is not encouraging people such as myself who have taken the time to research and document and provide very valuable input to this forum to have it arbitrarily deleted by a single party that takes exception to the data being "expanded" when that was not the case at all.Texan44 (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Texan44: Where did they say that? The explanations I see are that "Not relevant here since this article is about Dallas *only*, the DFW metropolitan area has an own article", "it's outside the scope of this article, belongin in Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex instead", and "it doesn't matter if it has been in the article for years or not, it DOES NOT belong in Dallas!!" All three of those are from the edit summaries in Dallas. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
He sent that to my talk page .... can you see it on my page? Yes, he says those other things too but when I responded directly to him about this his response to me was because I "expanded" the text. All I am asking you is if you will please restore the text and lock it for now, let me open a conversation on the Talk:Dallas page and get input, if there is consensus it should go then it will go and I will never waste my time on Wikipedia again with this topic. But with it being deleted and gone it makes it difficult for people to see what it is that is being discussed. If you will please, as a temporary measure, restore it, lock it and then let it be discussed over a period of time then it would seem more fair to someone who has invested, not just today but for a very long time adding updates to this very page. Can you do that and let me then see about how to start a new conversation on the Talk:Dallas page about this? I said I wasn't sure how to because I went over to that page and looked and didnt' see an easy way to start something (like it seemed with reaching out to you).Texan44 (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Texan44: What I see on your talk page is that he feels it's not appropriate for the Dallas article since it pertains to the Metroplex. I don't see anything where expanding the text being the reason for the removal, but that it was the thing that caused him to notice the entire block of text in the first place. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Then it is on his talk page ... because that was what was stated ... that because I "expanded" it it caused him to take notice and object to it. Anyway, since the page has contained this data for a very, very long time it would seem that the correct and fair thing to do is to restore it to the previous existing state, allow a discussion to be opened in the Talk:Dallas page, let input and feedback occur, and after that has occurred than action can be taken one way or the other. This approach right now is very one-sided ... if the party has an issue with it then why didn't they take it to the Talk:Dallas page in the first place than starting the editing war? The other party started the edit war and did not take the time or courtesy to post his issues in an appropriate setting for discussion before his taking arbitrary action that has led to this dispute. Wouldn't that have been the more civilized approach? Create a discussion in the appropriate forum about the matter FIRST before removing text that has been in place for a very, very long time and creating this level of dispute?
So I am asking you to do much as an unbiased arbiter would do, restore it to what it was, allow a discussion to be opened in an appropriate forum (Talk:Dallas) and monitor that for whatever is an acceptable period of time, then action be taken one way or the other that would be a consensus. Right now, the action taken is not one of consensus but completely arbitrary which seem to run counter to everything you are saying you support.Texan44 (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Texan44: So start the discussion already. There's a "New section" tab at the top of the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
If you will please restore the text, lock it for the timeframe that it is under discussion, so it can be visible to those who will participate in the discussion, and then final action be taken one way or the other. As stated, this is arbitrary right now and is not what a court of law would do in a similar circumstance. Longstanding text that has been there for ages should not be stripped away at the whim of one person ... I will be happy to start a discussion if the text can be restored, locked, and left in place for the duration of the discussion and then action taken that is fair and equitable to all parties involved, not just one which is what it is now.
If Wikipedia is about fairness then that is the correct way to go ...Texan44 (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Texan44: I will not protect the article. I am discussing with the last editor to remove it whether he agrees with restoring it. Just start the discussion already, and don't worry so much about how the article appears for now. —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
No answer on ANI
Hi, Lepricavarktold me that no admin is answering my request probably because it is long. The problem is that it has been 11 months now that these attacks continue, and when there are attempts to stop them, there are even more attacks so that it is too long for admins to read everything (specially since the attacks are often marred into artificial content disputes so that it appears even more complicated). The problem is that I do not feel safe editing since, without a ban of the user, I am to continue to be subject to these long-going aggressive and very hurtful attacks and threats. --Launebee (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Rumer image
Hello. I have one you can use. If you tell me how to send it to you I will provide it. It is free. It is my photo and you are welcome to use it and it has the approval of the artist. Please tell me how to send it to you.
The image you keep using is one that is not liked and is not the best free image as you state. Please consider using another, or advise me on how I can send you a free one to use. Thanks.
@ELOJeff10538: That picture is not free. Almost every picture on a newspaper website is copyrighted by the newspaper or a wire service; it is not free for Wikipedia to reuse. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
If you can tell me how to send you a picture I can guarantee that it is free as I took it, I own it and it has the approval of the artist. You may have it for free for this page. Can I email it to you as I can see no way of adding it here. Thanks so much
@ELOJeff10538: If it's free, it shouldn't be added here. It should be uploaded at Wikimedia Commons. There, it's easily accessible by anybody who wants to use it in any derivative works. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
This makes no sense. If its not free its not allowed and if it is free is shouldnt be added here. Why can it just not replace the picture you have here. You are talking in riddles and I have no idea what wikipedia commons is, how does it get from there to here after that?
@ELOJeff10538: It seems like some other editors have concerns about the image, so I don't want to add the image while their questions are opened. One thing I'm curious: you say the image had been used on Rumer's official Facebook page. Is the image or related posting still up, or archived somewhere, to where we can see that there's a "used with permission" note or some other credit? —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
It isn't on Rumer's official Facebook page at this time, it was over two years ago and she has changed the profile pictures on the page since. Altho I suppose it is archived somewhere. I have no way of knowing how to find an archived Facebook picture (if such a thing exists). To be honest I am less concerned about my own picture going up, and more concerned that photograph that has been put back up is back up again. Is there a way you can remove that one in the meantime. Thanks for your help C.Fred this is all new to me and seems incredibly over complex. All I was trying to do was help with a simple request to remove the current photo and replace it with "anything". ELOJeff10538 (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@ELOJeff10538: No, we will not just replace it with "anything". The image needs to improve upon whatever is already in the article, and it needs to be demonstrably under a free license. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok what I meant by "anything" was that "anything" would be better than the current photo. Of course replacing it with my photo once it has been approved would be great. But what I meant was that it really didn't have to be one of mine. Unless of course using such makes things simpler and quicker to change. Anyway, in the mean time can the Birmingham Symphony Hall photo loaded by EggHead06 be removed - no photo is better than that one. Thanks again. ELOJeff10538 (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@ELOJeff10538: Other editors disagree, so the image stays. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
So you would rather over-ride the personal wishes of the person in the picture. Thats really a terrible shame. ELOJeff10538 (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@ELOJeff10538: We don't know the wishes of the person in the picture. We only have the word of one editor claiming to know. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The picture you insist on keeping has not been "used with permission" of the person in it, why do you not need to prove that? Thats quite ironic all things considered. I shouldn't have to copy my personal email from the person in the picture asking me to help remove it surely? It seems that your word that an unwanted photograph is acceptable, but my word that I have been asked to help remove it is insufficient. This is not consistent or fair. ELOJeff10538 (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@ELOJeff10538: The picture currently in the article doesn't need permission, because we have good provenance of a free license. Once OTRS reviews the release of your image, then we can move forward. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Really what is the difference to you in these photographs. why does the one there have so much sway. I only have your word that it should be the photo that must be used. That is not sufficient. Surely? ELOJeff10538 (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The one there has a proven free license. The one you have uploaded, the license is contested. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Who is contesting it?? Why? It is my photograph. I have now asked for wiki commons to accept my ownership of it. I do not accept the wishes of the person contesting it as I know I own it. On what basis of established fact are they contesting it? I only have your or their word that they think it is contestable and that is not acceptable. Hopefully once wiki commons approve the fact that I have said it does not require a licence I will be able to load it. Or someone else can load something in place of the current picture. ELOJeff10538 (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's the diff of where they've said you need to go through Common OTRS for provenance of the image. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, as you said earlier above, hopefully we can soon move forward. Ultimately I am sure we are on the same side here, it is just hugely frustrating from the perspective of someone simply trying to help with what ought to be a pretty straightforward process. I do appreciate your assistance here in view all of the difficulties thus far encountered... Kind regards and hopefully soon we can get this fixed. ELOJeff10538 (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
As I've said before, there are some intentional barriers put in place regarding images, to make sure they're free, and regarding editors with conflicts of interest, to make sure the article stays neutral. You have a COI and are trying to change an image; congratulations, you managed to hit both sets of hurdles. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (talk page watcher) @ELOJeff10538: Copyright (ownership) belongs to the photographer not the image subject, unless the copyright has been explicitly transferred to the subject, in which case, would need verification. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a COI, I have consideration and respect for the person in that picture and their wishes. Sadly the intentional barriers you mention and their resulting pedantry here seems to over ride actual people's human feelings and emotions. Of course technically you are right on all counts but if these things are more important, then this seems very very sad and tbh quite shameful. ELOJeff10538 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@ELOJeff10538: You don't have a COI? My bad. I thought you said you'd been trying to remove the image at the subject's request. —C.Fred (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes that's right. To repeat, there is no Conflict of Interest here just simple courtesy and respect and consideration for others. I do not subscribe to your view that this is a COI. Rules may be rules to you, of course, but you are arbitrarily assigning your assertion to me - as a result of suchlike - on some totally random (and more importantly inaccurate) whim here (if you don't accept things "on a whim" then neither do I). So to make absolutely clear I do not accept this as I am not prepared to take such a random view at face value. Sorry about that. I have said before this about common courtesy etc etc, so we'll just have to try and move forward if a different photograph is approved for use on the page in time. Thanks again. ELOJeff10538 (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@ELOJeff10538: What, then, are we to make of your claims to have corresponded with the subject by email and contributed a photo that was used on her Facebook page? —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
You can make of them whatever you like. If you are calling me a liar then fine. Unfair and you're wrong, but its your prerogative I suppose. However, that is personally really not at all important to me. I have no need to prove myself to you in this regard, I was just hoping to swap over a picture. I've made clear why. It really is up to you whether you believe "my claims" or not. I really don't care if you don't believe them, I would just like the photograph changed over as I have said many times before. That's all that matters to me here at the end of the day. If you choose to believe that I have made that up it really doesn't bother me in comparison to the actual request. Just another sad shameful part of the process I guess. Ho hum. Lets hope my photo gets approved by the licensing folks as a first step anyway. If my attempts fail, then it is my understanding that this issue will be progressed more formally by other parties more professionally placed and much better at the whole thing than me ... ELOJeff10538 (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Dear FlightTime, there should be no copyright issues regarding a request for the removal of a photograph. Thanks anyway. ELOJeff10538 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, C.Fred. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "TSFactory".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Marram Susli
I am reverting the VANDALISM that references a personal attack opinion piece referering to her as a "Kardashian look a like, and slandering her".
I have also sited the WP:RS where Video references are Allowed.
The people undoing this version have a political aganda against her, and are trying to slander her. Wikipedian FW (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Wikipedian FW: You are not reverting vandalism. All parties are acting in good faith.
I think you had some good material in your edits, and it probably got thrown out with the bad. That's why I suggest taking it to the talk page and going in smaller chunks. It's easier to get buy-in on smaller changes than a massive overhaul...especially when the last source left showing is patently bad. —C.Fred (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Then why didn't you just remove the google doc?
What you have reverted to, just leaves personal attack opinion pieces. This is unacciptible. Wikipedian FW (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Wikipedian FW: Because I haven't had a chance to vet the rest of it and put it back together. —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
C.Fred, this user is all over the place (literally); I think it's important to point out that a. they don't seem to understand WP:RS; b. that article is not an opinion piece; c. the edits they didn't like aren't vandalism (obviously); d. the accusations of slander and a political agenda are complete BS. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: I agree that they don't understand RS. On the surface, it looked like they added some good sources; however, I hadn't had a chance to see if the sources check out and if they support the claim. In my experience, also, the more that party A cries that party B has a political agenda, the more that party A is actually trying to push an agenda or otherwise unbalance the article. I'm not saying outright that that's the case with WFW, but I can see how it could follow. —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
My first article about ART!
Why my article was deleted by @C.Fred Solecito91 (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Can someone help to recreate my article is very important for my culture .Thanks Solecito91 (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Solecito91: Unfortunately, the article didn't demonstrate any importance or significance about Cruz. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Sammy Sosa
I am Mr. Sosa’s attorney and his biographical info as to his ethnicity is incorrect. Please remove that his father was of Haitian origin. He was Dominican DominicanResponse (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not being compensated for my edits. I am a personal friend and Sammy Sosa’s lawyer and the info that I removed is at Mr. Sosa’s insistence because the info is false. DominicanResponse (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@DominicanResponse: If you're Mr. Sosa's lawyer, and if you're editing at his request, you're within the scope of WP:PAID. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Then what do I need to do to correct the info? This is the first topic I edit ever on Wikipedia. The info on his father is false. I don’t know what else I can do because it should be removed. I am not being paid to edit this. I am his attorney but, this is not in my billable time. I am simply editing the content to correct incorrect info DominicanResponse (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I will make sure that I have a published reliable source to counter the article that assumes that Mr. Sosa’s father was of Haitian origin. The article cited doesn’t even confirm the allegations and conclusions reached. However, I will make sure that I get a reliable source and cite it to counter the misstatements made by whoever edited it and included the false info. Thank you. I am not doing this to get publicity, incite a war of words or anything of the like, I simply want to correct the article so that the info is correct. DominicanResponse (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey fred dont you know who alessandro esposito is???
I am overly shocked by your shocking disparaging comments about the god we know to be Alessandro Esposito. You said that my edits had an unacceptable amount of overly glowing prose about Alessandro Esposito. On the contrary, sir, I don't think they were glowing enough. That man is a god, and all of my information came directly from him. So why don't you leave me to do my business and you do yours. God dammit, Fred. I'm trying to make him famous.
Ojax364 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)ojax364
"With no class today", Ash and Lana go Pokémon-fishing, but they may end up catching more than they bargained for since the lagoon they're fishing in may contain a water-type Totem Pokémon. If there is, then Lana is determined to battle it. Meanwhile, Kiawe takes the rest of the gang to visit his family's dairy farm, and Team Rocket doesn't seem to be having much luck with their own Pokémon-fishing is not the blurb UnknownPro (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
^The English episode numbers are based on their first airing in the United States in syndication on Disney XD. Other English-speaking nations largely follow either this order or the Japanese order.
Jethro Tull Page
Why? I am the only one posting the correct information. Please read the links that I have sourced!
@Hooter13: It doesn't matter. You're in a content dispute, and you may not edit war. If you want to revise the page, you must discuss the changes and get consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
OK Fred. I think I have posted enough sources on the talk page to back up my claims that Jethro Tull has not reformed. So who will now provide the consensus in order to get the erroneous information removed?
@Hooter13: Other editors will. And you'll have to allow some time for people to log in and discuss. Sometimes there will be a clear consensus that emerges quickly; sometimes it may take a week; and sometimes the arguments on both sides are so strong that consensus never emerges, so the article stays in the status quo situation. —C.Fred (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I have added signature. Can I delete something that I posted on the talk pages? --Hooter13 (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hooter13: It depends. If it's something you just posted, yes. If it's something nobody has responded to, yes. If it's something somebody has responded to, then it's trickier: you are allowed to remove it, but it distorts the flow of the conversation, so don't be surprised if the replying poster adds something about "in reply to a deleted comment saying..." to fill in the context. —C.Fred (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
So it seems that FlightTime has ruled that the Jethro Tull page will remain as is, largely because Escape Orbit provided the most current reference, which was dated March 16, 2017. I then provided an article dated Aug. 12, 2017 which clearly states that Ian Anderson "now goes by his name rather than that of the group" and "He formally ended Jethro Tull a few years ago, figuring it was probably time that it was his name on the marquee." Please have a look at this article. It is clear indication that Ian Anderson now tours under his own name.
I admit that I am also a newbie to Wikipedia. What I would like to know though is whether FlightTime or Escape Orbit have a higher status than me. If not, what makes them correct and me wrong?--Hooter13 (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Hooter13: This is very frustrating, you're either not listing to anything that has been explained to you or you're not understanding. When it comes to content and consensus no one is higher that anyone else, not even Jimbo Wales. Consensus rules everything on Wikipedia, but I'm done with this issue, good luck to you and your agenda. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Dead South Korean Musicians
You redirected it to a page that doesn't exist, and it cant be reverted.-K-popguardian (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@K-popguardian: You caught me in the middle of cleaning up the mess you made with the copy-and-paste move. I had to temporarily delete the page to merge the histories. —C.Fred (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
oh, ok. Thank you for the help. Sry i got mad.-K-popguardian (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
IP 103.75.119.100
Hi C.Fred. You blocked this IP for 31 hours back in September for block evasion (probably related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euexperttime/Archive). Anyway, the IP seems to be back editing European School articles. I reverted the IP edits and asked them to discuss on the articles' talk pages instead because the IP's preferred version has been previously reverted by others multiple times and is also the same version which other IPs were trying to add. If this was an inappropriate thing to do, please revert me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your report Marchjuly. You beat me to it and I appreciate your vigilance. MarnetteD|Talk 01:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Why my talk: Umair Ahmad page Deleted by You ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.187.56.255 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Pakyouthtv: Because the related article was deleted, because Umair Ahmad was not demonstrated to be a significant or important person. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Aygün Kazımova albums
hi... Now Ömrüm - Günüm, Sevdi Ürək the pages will be deleted? I swear to God this is true. these old albums. the songs not be offered officially for sale in our country. do not allow pirat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayla.Mirzezadeh (talk • contribs) 19:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
It's an unreleased album? All the more reason to delete. —C.Fred (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Lakeland Baltimore
External links is a community page not advertisement. The Facebook page was up over 10 years. There is also a website about the community. Why isn't it allowed?? Lakelandbmore (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Lakelandbmore: The age of the Facebook page doesn't matter. The page would have to be an official web presence of the community, not just be about the community, to be allowable. —C.Fred (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Please review your closure, you acted based on a lie
So far, it checks out. PlyrStar93 was reverting a copy-and-paste fork. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
And I see evidence of IP-hopping after one IP was blocked. Thank you for pointing that out; I've blocked your IP accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@Iampython: It doesn't matter who his critics are. Having a Facebook account or Spotify profile does not make an artist notable. The HuffPo piece might qualify; you'll have to show that it's new since the AfD. Otherwise, I'm going with the established consensus of the community. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
List of Nintendo products
Is the potential issue solved or do I need to make further edits? I undid my last reversion. —DanielFreed (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@DanielFreed: You're good for now. I'm waiting to see what, if anything, the other editor says. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! —DanielFreed (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
That Last Vengaboys Edit
IT appears the source coming directly from "a controversial museum" of that last Vengaboys Edit confirming their 20th Anniversary is up to date and correct, just check robin pors and Denise posts Instagram page for additional proof...
If it's coming from the museum, the source is not reliable. Let's leave it out before I have to start a sockpuppet investigation. —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Your Right, definitely not reliable, Something Weird is going on with "That" Museum... Just checked it again and was redirected to this and greeted by this ominous page claiming several parts of their Museum are under attack by some hater and some weird sounding siren blared in the background constantly!
@C.Fred: Sorry about removing your CSD tag on this page. I added a few tags then was going to add {{mergeto}} St. Michael-Albertville High School. When the edit came back and I saw the CSD tag, the only thing I could think was "crap." LOL! Thanks for the hard work. Operator873CONNECT 02:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Operator873: There's a draft version of the page out there at Draft:STMA High School Theater Program, so I'm not so worried about needing to extract data for a merge. You're right, though, that any useful material should be in the school's article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
St. Michael Albertville High School Theater Program
Hello C. Fred. I'm continuing this from a separate page.
The information is valid (regarding the STMA Theater Program) for a wiki article, already looking at the WP:ORG article this particular subject has multiple news sources reporting on it(^ Gutzwiller, Meghan. “Pirates of Penzance Takes the Stage at STMA High School Starting Thursday.” North Wright County Today, 7 Nov. 2016, northwrightcounty.today/2016/11/pirates-penzance-takes-stage-stma-high-school-starting-thursday/.) , talked about in a published book by a St. Michael Historian (2.^ Jump up to: a b Zahler, Bob. Faith, Family & Farming: a History of St. Michael, Minnesota. Robert H. Zahler, 2009.). I will continuing looking at the page to further prove my point by implore you to reconsider you judgment without having examined all the facts thoroughly
Clubs are generally deleted as not notable unless they are syndicated or coordinated on a national/international level. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools). 1.) The STMA High School Theater Program is not a club, but a program and 2.) It is apart of the International Thespians Society which, as it says in the title, an INTERNATIONAL organization. The Program also welcomes many foreign exchange students, which also adds to its claim of "coordination with a national/international level"OlderWomen (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Also I read you wiki article and noticed the part about your "deletion":
In the course of wielding the administrator's mop, I also delete a fair number of articles. Most are about the editor's band, girlfriend, school club, story idea, or MMORPG guild. Some articles have a shred of hope to them, so I leave them around to see if there is future development on them. While I keep them on my watchlist, I've also got a list of articles to revisit to see if progress has been made on them. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:C.Fred)
So yes, I can see you would want to delete this page and I respect your opinion, but my article and its subject DO meet the standards of the article you recommended me (WP:ORG) and yes, it does have, as you phrase it, "a shred of hope". I'll be adding more information shortly so please give me the opportunity to at least continue editing it until I can submit it, I promise that the information that will be stated in it will be more than satisfactory. OlderWomen (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, just saw this, are you considering merging it with the St. Michael Albertville High School page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Michael-Albertville_High_School). I just noticed that conversation you were having with someone, sorry to throw that on there as well.OlderWomen (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This is my vikipedia dear C. Fred
Dear C Fred i am the person whose Vikipedia this is and there are some very bad things in it about me , which are absolutely false please do ask a proof from someone when they make a change about a public person and allow me to make required changes so that you can have accurate information about me
and also please let me know who made these recent changes when it was said that i am a sex worker, i am an a global prize winning girls education activist sister Zeph, and this is someone who is making such stories about me, I am feeling so bad right now by looking at such words about me and my character
I missed the IP vandalism. Now I see what happened. Sorry about that. —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
That "Persistent" Vengaboys Museum
That Vengaboys Museum appears to be Persistent... Keep a eye on the official Vengaboys wiki or Protect it and force Vengaboys Themselves to provide their ID if they want to add any new Edits to their Wiki...
First a weird page came up saying the Museum was under attack, now it has returned to normal... They must be planning something big because this recently popped up on google if you do a search for Vengaboys Museum and you check out their official facebook page and you see a ominous message about their museum creating some kind of "global domination"...
Thanks for throwing that indef block on the sock account that just popped up :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 03:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: No problem. It's almost not sporting to block them when they make it that obvious. :) Yet it's pretty necessary to go ahead and block quickly, especially when it's a sock of a banned user. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Bad overlook on my part at James Burgoyne, thanks for cleaning it up. Home Lander (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
invitation
we request that you join the MM we stop Islamaphobic bias and encourage knowledge about Islam including on wikipedia.
@PhilosophyandIslamexpert: What is the MM? And Wikipedia already has a policy on neutral point of view; I don't feel the need to join any additional task force to continue doing that.—C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Why would you delete this page?it is confirmed by the references
@Onix14489952: Nothing in the reference showed any significance or importance, either as a musician or an actor. —C.Fred (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
There are links to imdb and kinlock, this is the most authoritative websites about the movie.
@Onix14489952: Just appearing in a movie doesn't make him notable. And what is kinlock? Who publishes it; how is it reliable? —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Onix14489952: Who does the editorial review? I mean, if it's the Russian equivalent of IMDB, then it's only useful to prove an actor was in a movie, nothing more about them. —C.Fred (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Onix14489952: And how are they subject experts on movies? —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The website people are doing,Kotor follow the movie news,actors.All editors of the site understand the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onix14489952 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
So you can recover the page?The actor is quite famous in the country and there are links to reliable sources.
@Onix14489952: No. The sources—if we accept they're reliable—don't show that the actor is in any way significant or important. Also, please sign your posts. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
This actor-Belarus.In my country it is quite well known.A bunch of Belarusian actors and poets there are in Wikipedia,but in your country it is not known.—Onix14489952
@Onix14489952: The notability guidelines do not change just because of the country an actor works in. One part in a movie doesn't cut it. If he's "quite well known", show where he's gotten substantial news coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I can throw links to Russian-language sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onix14489952 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Onix14489952: One is an unreliable discussion board. The other, I can't tell if the source is reliable. That's why I said to discuss them, on your talk page, before trying to create the article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I will create a page for the last time.Will add a lot of sources.Do not like-delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onix14489952 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
And I see that another admin has blocked you. Don't say you weren't warned. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
No Index
Hello, please help out to take down all discussions of S.Styron. Mostly are indexed on Google. Thats not allowed.
User is Global Banned. So do not index the past things. There is no need.
Please check all sites and delete everything. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NEW-02 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@NEW-02: First, you're adding a protection template to pages that aren't protected. Second, just because a user is global banned, that doesn't mean that every page they've touched should be marked NOINDEX. Third, how does an apparently brand new account know so much? —C.Fred (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Brannock High School
Just wanted to let you know I appreciate you finding the last good (maybe?) state for Brannock High School. When I get a chance, I'll dig through and work on the article to see if I can't verify all the info. Operator873CONNECT 22:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The user Cheikh Didier keeps on editing this page over the past two days, removing the correct link to the director Mike Mitchell and replacing it with the disambiguation page, which I don't like because it leads readers to the wrong page. The user has repeated the performance four times, twice before and after page protection. There should be appropriate action to take against the user who did that. Thanks, Iggy (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Iggy the Swan: It doesn't look like there was any attempt to communicate with him recently, so I've left a message. I'll start watching the article and his user talk page to see what happens next. —C.Fred (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Mountain View High School
Hey I want to improve upon the Mountain View High School Wikipedia page, as it is certainly very lacking. I'm trying to put in information about many organizations, but I'm not sure what counts as encyclopedic and what doesn't since the only comment you ususally leave behind after deleting my edits is that my information isn't encyclopedic. Please help!
@Infoismymiddlename: It's too much detail. It's appropriate to mention that the school has an FBLA chapter. It is reasonable to mention if somebody from the school has won an event at the NLC. It is too much detail to list student officers or membership numbers. —C.Fred (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay-okay, let's talk this over
I was merely following the name that's used on the Swedish Wikipedia. It has been 'bout four years since I last studied Swedish, so I am not sure if there is something fishy about the matter, I'll admit. --Prospero One (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Prospero One: When I machine-translated the sv.wiki page, the word "dipped" showed up as well—and I could see terms like the dipping of colors (lowering of a flag to honor somebody/-thing) applying. So, it may be an issue with Google picking the wrong of multiple meanings. The page history is just unnerving enough that I don't want to trust it. This would be a good job for somebody who is up on their Swedish. —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Google was simply wrong. "Stupad" means "fallen in war", and I can think of no Swedish word for "stupid" that sounds similar. You can use the word metaphorically, for instance "stupa i säng" = "fall into bed", but it's always a verb that means "fall over heavily". Perhaps somebody has tricked G Translate - that sometimes happens. --bonadeacontributionstalk 22:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Bonadea: Yep, that's why I have to be careful with trusting Google translate. Thank you for shedding some light on it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Rizwan Ahmed (Pakistani official)
When the matter stated in the article is not backed by one or two citations but by more than a dozen citations, how can possibly term the info as biased, exaggerated or vague? Kindly look into this. Labeling a page, backed by solid references, with maintenance tags is extremely wrong! Rashid Ghafoor (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Rashid Ghafoor: The COI tag was placed because somebody is concerned that you have a conflict of interest with the subject. It is therefore inappropriate for you to remove the tag (logged in or not). —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
What about the other two maintenance tags?? You are a registered user, how about you look into this?? Having these tags is something extremely disrespectful to the contributions made that have been backed by sources mentioned. Thanks would appreciate if you can do something! Rashid Ghafoor (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Rashid Ghafoor: Also, it's not the sources (or lack thereof) that are the issue; it's the wording of the text. —C.Fred (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
What is your role in editing first hand accounts by an individual to a Wikipedia page to obscure factual first hand account of criminal behavior ? Spookmagook (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Spookmagook: Are you implying that your edits to Gary Little were based on unpublished primary sources? —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes I am a primary source who met with him was asaulted by him and threatened with false arrest, planting evidence and prison if I disclosed. He was the Asst State Attorney General and. He was serious Spookmagook (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Fred yes I am saying that as a primary source having been attacked, and with him demanding sex . When I was able to leave he threatened me as the Washington State Attorney general with false arrest and imprisonment if I disclosed the event Spookmagook (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Spookmagook: Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place for you to post first-hand accounts. That goes against our policy of no original research. Further, you have a conflict of interest with the subject due to your interactions and should not edit his article at all. You may request changes at the talk page of the article, but you should not make the changes yourself. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Fred this whole page is jury rigged by criminal suppression of source material . When you apply these standards against the manipulation of the story your point allows for continuation of myth building for the story of a very disturbing predation. Oddly very little of this story in Wikipedia is a reflection of the truth.
The victims in this case were intimidated, had too much to loose as with the Lakeside boys or disenfranchised as with the street kids this judge raped.
Congrats, rules without methodology in this case are malleable forms of propaganda as is demonstrated in this situation. Spookmagook (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Spookmagook: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a venue for you to tell your perspective of the truth. Please see the essay WP:Verifiability, not truth for more information. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Patrick Oswald F. Fletcher
Hi Fred;
I am Patricia Anne Fletcher. My brother Edward Michael Fletcher and I wish to improve upon the page about Patrick Oswald F. Fletcher. We do not see this as an issue of conflict just that it needs fleshing out. I have left a message on the Talk on the current page however I see the page was put up by WikiProject Saskatchewan and they are shown as semi-active which means I may never get a reply. I am quite willing to show you what we would like to place on the page. I don't think there should be a problem with the material, it just is more complete.
Please let me know how to proceed.
Thank you
Pat Sportate (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportate (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Sportate: Family members are always deemed to have a conflict of interest. They are too close to the subject to write neutrally. You're correct in placing a request for edits at the talk page of the article; make sure to provide independent reliable sources so other editors can verify the changes. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback regarding my article. I´m new at this so do you mind giving me some advice on how to finish it, please? whats missing etc? Your feedback would be very helpful for me.
Regards
Marlode (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I already had a feeling this is some sort of sock, but there is no way for me to know who the master is. -★-PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 05:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Sro23: Something didn't feel right with the AfD, but I didn't know the backstory of that user. Glad the AfD has been removed. —C.Fred (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Same Thing
There isn't really a difference between blocked or banned, as they mean the same thing. AllyGebies (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Reply at your talk page, where the thread started. —C.Fred (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
My last edits
Can you explain how my edits broke the Neutrality Rule any more than the original article, and its treatment of "ableism" as some proven scientific term, which it certainly isn't? Bucky225 (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Bucky225: The article as it existed included reliable sources. Your edits didn't. It's pretty clear that you're trying to advance a point with your edits, not write a neutral encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry to know that you never identify the links provided in Kartikeya are not related to Murugan- the god of Tamils. First you should not redirect the Murugan page to Karthikeya.
Karthikeya is god worshiped in North India and not related to Tamil god Murugan. Murugan or Murukan is purely tamil god and dont mix up the Dravidian culture to Aryan culture of north. Aryan culture looted our god and say it in different names. But pure Tamil god is only with six names. Provided in the following page.
[19]
1. So i request to to delete the re-directing link from Murugan to karthikeya. If you want to write about Karthikeya its well and good. Dont direct the Dravidian god Murugan to that page of god Karthikeya. Read more about Murugan god of Tamils in the above link provided.
My suggestion is to write about Tamil god murugan there should be a page and it is totally different worshiping by Tamils when compared to Karthikeya worship in North India.
2. First the link provided in the "Karthikeya" page is absolute non-sense. "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muruga_(film)"
It is a regular Tamil cinema with only having the name Muruga. and it is no way related to Murugan god.
3.Second the the link provided in the karthikeya page is second non-sense thing "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karthikeya_(film)"
It is a regular Telugu cinema with only have the name Karthikeya
4. The Picture of Murugan god shown as Karthikeya is third non-sense thing shown in that page. It is God Murugan and not karthikeya. Refer the below page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batu_Caves. The picture to removed from karthikeya page or to be renamed as Lord Murugan.
So i request you not to insult the beliefs of Tamils and Tamil god Murugan with title Karthikeya which belongs to only North Indians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayavan.murugan.sadasivam (talk • contribs) 15:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mayavan.murugan.sadasivam: On your points 2 and 3, that's exactly why those templates are there: so somebody looking for those unrelated topics with similar names can find them. Regarding point 1, you'll need to discuss on Talk:Karthikeya to get consensus for a split; there'd been talk of a rename before, which was rejected, but i think people are amenable to the split. As far as the picture, you'd have to discuss that at talk as well. —C.Fred (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear C.Fred,
You can even notice in the Karthikeya page the following in the first paragraph.
Quote"
Kartikeya is particularly popular and predominantly worshipped in South India as Murugan, among the Tamil people.[4][2][5]
Unquote"
Also Murukan is the worshiped as lord Murukan by the ancient tamils and not the new god Karthikeya. this would justify to have the the original god "Murukan" rather than "Karthikeya" from which other names have emerged.
For more understanding read the following books,
http://murugan.org/research/clothey.faces.of.murukan.htm
"The Many Faces of Murukan: The History and Meaning of a South Indian God "
By Fred W. Clothey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayavan.murugan.sadasivam (talk • contribs) 05:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mayavan.murugan.sadasivam: Sounds like that would be something useful to mention in a split discussion at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Projet Montreal 2013.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Projet Montreal 2013.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
There really has been some heavy-handed editing and deletions regarding band name THE RUB.
A temporary band that played a few gigs has been favored in the wikipedia review process over the first band to use the name that was formed in Los Angeles in 1985 and that has been active through to its current release in November 2017. THE RUB is on the notable independent Happy Squid Records (Pasadena, CA) label which has its own wikipedia page. This label represents an important LA underground list of artists. There is a gentlemen named Reni associated with the temporary gig band he named the rub whose ego knows no bounds. You really should review all his postings, which are self-generated and self aggrandizing. For example, did you know Reni is the greatest drummer in rock history - according to Reni. This wikipedia lets stand at the expense of a very humble and descriptive posting THE RUB (US). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.115.79 (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The community has spoken. The US band from 1985 is not notable per its judgment. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello my Canadian brother
See [20]. I see you went to UNC. A lot of my family went to Duke. Doug Wellertalk 18:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Please stop deleting my edit. I’m just correcting the wording. The reference is already there. They just left out the word Reserve.
Please stop deleting my edit. I’m just correcting the wording. The reference is already there. They just left out the word Reserve. IShoot556 (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Sock
Fred, Vbnmj is a sock of Nsmutte. Please block the account, see the SPI if needed. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Home Lander: Yeah, it just took me a bit to spot the pattern. Blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Think a sock is active at Northwell Health where you just were at - apparently they have an issue with the COI tag. Home Lander (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@Home Lander: I don't see who it's an obvious sock of, but it feels like some pretty WP:POINTy editing, if it isn't pure vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see it now. Two new accounts in one day. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I mass-reverted the second account's edits to multiple pages, all were removing COI tags. Home Lander (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Vengaboys Article "Vengaboys "Illuminati" Update"
Please check the reference of the latest Vengaboys interview involving "a fan asking Vengaboys about the Illuminati" on the official vengaboys wiki before you go undoing it just because the source came directly from Vengaboys themselves in a interview through a Ellington Video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellingtonisland (talk • contribs) 03:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Please Check Music Video Filming location in Vengaboys Article
Please Check latest Uncle John Music Video Filming location in Vengaboys Article to see if it meets Wikipedia's Officious Reference Policies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.13.125 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Since it appears to be an unaltered interview, I've let it stand. However, I've moved it from the Vengaboys article to the one for "Uncle John from Jamaica". —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Requested power pose edits
I requested 3 edits. You refused them based on a single reference to a blog, what about the other changes? The reference to the blog itself s a minor point, the reference itself was to a blog that was already cited by the article you might note if you took the time. My text that referred to the blog states its existence, which is verifiable, rather than the veracity of its content, either way, that part need not be included. All other edits cite academic sources. Whats your excuse for not including those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialpsychfollower (talk • contribs) 18:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Socialpsychfollower: If you twist a reference from a reliable source by adding what a blog says, it stands to reason that the other changes aren't any better. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
You may note that this was not one of my requested edits. Don't include that point if you think its not accurate, this is your job as an administrator. This point is not relevant to the merit of the requested edits. Do you have any actual objections to them? If they are sound shouldn't you allow them? Sorry but wikipedia is starting to look like a massive waste of time for this contributor. Socialpsychfollower 18:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@C.Fred:Oh. Could you look to the next sentence of the edit request page and look at those before rejecting my edit requests. They are numbered 1. 2. 3. Please let me know if you have any further troubleSocialpsychfollower 19:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Socialpsychfollower: With all due respect, no. I'm not digging through the diffs of your edits to find Carney's statements. That's why you were advised to make specific requests with specific sources cited, not just say to change Carney's statements based on an academic paper. —C.Fred (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
1st. - include Dana Carneys more recent statements on power posing that acknowledges evidence of an effect on feelings of power. (Academic paper)
CHANGE:
In 2016 Carney published a statement on the University of California, Berkeley website, stating that she no longer believed the effect was valid.[1][2][3][4]
TO:
In 2016 Carney published a statement on the University of California, Berkeley website, stating that she no longer believed the effect was valid.[1][2][3][4]Carney has since participated on more research and her original statement is at odds with the most recent work that concludes a Bayesian meta-analysis "showed a reliable non-zero effect on felt power".[5]
2nd: Consider including some of my edits that report on the successful power posing replications, not just the non replications.
CHANGE:
A 2015 article, published in Psychological Science by Ranehill et al. refuted findings in Carney et al. (2010).
TO:
A 2015 article, published in Psychological Science by Ranehill et al. failed to replicate the hormone and behavioral findings in Carney et al. (2010), however the authors successfully replicated the effects on feelings of power.
3. Consider allowing the definition of power pose to include the replicated psychological effects hypothesized in the seminal paper.(Carney 2010)
CHANGE
Power posing' is a hypothesis in psychology that claims that by assuming a "powerful" posture, subjects can induce positive hormonal and behavioral changes. It was introduced in a 2010 paper by Dana Carney, Amy Cuddy, and Andy Yap.[1]
TO
Power posing is a hypothesis in psychology that claims that by assuming a "powerful" posture, subjects can induce positive psychological, hormonal and behavioral changes.[6] It was introduced in a 2010 paper by Dana Carney, Amy Cuddy, and Andy Yap.[1]
Looking back on these edits, it is utterly absurd that they were blocked in the first place.
^ abcdDominus, Susan (October 18, 2017). "When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy". New York Times Magazine. As a young social psychologist, she played by the rules and won big: an influential study, a viral TED talk, a prestigious job at Harvard. Then, suddenly, the rules changed.
User:Socialpsychfollower some of your changes are fine. You seem to be an academic, and it can be hard for academics who are used to writing whole pieces, submitting them for review, getting comments, and changing them as they see fit.... to working in Wikipedia, which is nothing like that, but rather completely collaborative. You have made a series of very sweeping changes that have included some that are not OK in Wikipedia, under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and some that were OK. If you will not discuss on the Talk page, we cannot work together. The situation is very resolvable but you must discuss at the article talk page and yes, on a granular level.
Some academics come here and are never able to adapt to see Wikipedia for what it actually is, and go away angry and frustrated. That would be a shame, but we cannot help it when people cannot adapt to this, admittedly strange, environment.
You might find the essay, WP:EXPERT, helpful. Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Nakeya Brown
When the next editor has a go at me, as they sometimes do, for being a little previous with my CSD tagging, I will be able to say that sometimes, just sometimes, C.Fred beats me to the draw ! VelellaVelella Talk 19:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I am responded in reference to the Artist's Proof Page. The explanation were vague and some were incorrect. If you read my edit, I describe in detail all proofs and how each is a part of the printmaking process. I have been in the field for over 40 yrs and wanted to fix it for younger generations who may be interested. Ideally there would a "Printmaking Proofs" page with all the proof types underneath with a link to their own page i.e. Artists Proof, Printers Proof, Trail Proof, Bon a Tirer, etc. How can I go about doing this. I spent a good deal of time writing my edit so I'm curious what steps need to be taken so that it is approved. I am new to this so help would be appreciated. Thank you for your time.
I am responded in reference to the Artist's Proof Page. The explanation were vague and some were incorrect. If you read my edit, I describe in detail all proofs and how each is a part of the printmaking process. I have been in the field for over 40 yrs and wanted to fix it for younger generations who may be interested. Ideally there would a "Printmaking Proofs" page with all the proof types underneath with a link to their own page i.e. Artists Proof, Printers Proof, Trail Proof, Bon a Tirer, etc. How can I go about doing this. I spent a good deal of time writing my edit so I'm curious what steps need to be taken so that it is approved. I am new to this so help would be appreciated. Thank you for your time.
@Arthistoryandfacts: You should discuss this matter at Talk:Artist's proof to see if there is broad support for the change—and to get editors who can help refine your writing and bring it in line with Wikipedia's style guide. —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@SamHolt6: The Vhacker account was focusing on a YouTube person. This person is (allegedly) in mainstream film. That said, I'm not sure I 100% trust the IMDB credits. —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Operator873's Award
Operator873's Outstanding Wikipedian Award
For conspicuous and meritorious service under unusual and/or exceptional circumstances, I am proud to present this award to C.Fred in honor of their accomplishments which reflect great credit upon themselves and their fellow Wikipedians. You were observed directly acting to oppose vandalism, restore content, fight sockpuppetry, and protect content in a blindingly fast manner. There was at least two times you were able to respond to evolving incidents faster than I could. While you may carry a mop and are "expected" to invest a certain amount of dependability and dedication, your actions are clearly above and beyond the normal "call of duty." Especially when one considers today is Thanksgiving and a recognized US Holiday. Thank you, for all you do here. Operator873CONNECT 23:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Bambenekcd1
Hi,
I'm not seeing anything that explains the block. It looks like he was creating pages for users? If you are going to block him for disruption, shouldn't there be something about the block on this talk page so he knows A) what he was blocked for and B) how to move forward? Given he has disclosed who he is (or at least who he claims to be), this is either him or someone trying to attack him in some weird way. Either way I'd think we'd want this dealt with a bit more by-the-book. Hobit (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Hobit: It was the chain of "how to hack Wordpress" pages at titles like Talk:Dua Lipa/w/index.php/ that elicited the block for disruption. Plus, he removed two images with valid licenses claiming they were copyvios. I was going to comment on the disruptive nature of the second removal when another admin had blocked him. It's entirely likely that admin saw a pattern of behaviour from an earlier disruptive user. I'd say address the lack of block notice with the blocking admin. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Will do. Could you e-mail me the pages created? Something seems very off here. I'll reach out to the person that this user claimed to be to see if it was really them. If not we should really remove any indication it _was_ them. Hobit (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Hobit: Sent. Feel free to continue dialogue in email so it's off-channel. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That's all I need for now. I do appreciate the help and very quick responses! Hobit (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, C.Fred. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@Hobit: Already acted on it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Boleyn. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Khadim Hussain Rizvi, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Hi C.Fred, I noticed you have recently undone some edits done by Nkckyjamelcangri787 (history). This is now the second time the user has created copy-paste moves of the same two Star Wars movies, introducing new, apparently made up, permutations of the movie titles and then edited articles of actors taking part in the movies to bind them to his new version of the same article. He is new, so I am a bit on the fence if this is just an inexperienced new user or something more. Some of the edits are ok, but many are on the border to vandalism, including a couple of PAs against me when I undid his changes the first time around diff, diff. He has been cautioned a few times, but as he always purges his talk page after a warning, I'm not sure other editors have noticed this. I was wondering if we are actually already in level 4 territory ([21]). Just on the basis of this, I thought maybe ANI would be warranted. In addition, there is evidence of sockpuppetry (or at least the building up of a second, clean user). Those two look remarkably similar: userpage1, userpage2 with similar edit patterns, though the second user has been inactive for a few weeks. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on this? pseudonymJake Brockmantalk 08:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jake Brockman: Since the other account was clean from a warning/block perspective, I don't think we have an issue with sockpuppetry. (Yes, I checked the user talk history.) Blanking the warnings is not inherently a problem; if anything, administrators interpret that as the user having read and acknowledged the warning. So, any follow-on warning should be one above the last level given. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Philip Goring
Hi, I think you are right about the COI. Thank you for clearing it up for me. I think I should have read deeper into using good Wikipedia before creating a page.
There are articles (printed press) and an exhibition of Philips work scheduled for next year so I guess we may think about a Wikipedia entry again then (by someone who know what they are doing!)
Hello C.Fred, just to let you know I've started an RfC on this BLP. Regards, JGHowes talk 04:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
/* Mersenne numbers in nature and elsewhere */ pyramid charts
I did. I don't need to site alt text for an image from which the fact is instantly verifiable.
@Kulprit001: What image? I don't see any such image in that section of the article that you're referring to. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
the image is a pyramid chart, as described, any and all of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulprit001 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, C.Fred. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Sir, I want to delete my account from Wikipedia permanently and my posted pages too. How can I do that ? Please guide me Aliscience.in (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@Aliscience.in: Short answer: you cannot. Longer answer: if you're the only editor of a page, you can request deletion with the {{db-author}} template. If you've contributed to articles, you can't "take back" your contributions. You also can't delete your account, but you can request it be changed to something that doesn't identify you. See WP:Courtesy vanishing for more information and limitations. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Confirming Idenity
I'm apologies, I am new to Wikipedia as far as editing goes. I was sent an alert about my account being suspected of being an impersonation account and I would just like to know the process for confirming who I am. I was attempting to prevent myself from being doxxed on my own wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenpaiDP (talk • contribs) 01:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@BenpaiDP: Follow the link to WP:VRT; that will provide instructions on how to email the team that handles these matters. The ticket system they use is not open to the general editing population, so it will provide a degree of security. —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of English Independence
Having read A7, English Independence IS an English Nationalist political party in England, and its leader is Neil Humphrey, as per its registration with the Electoral Commission. It contested Batley & Spen By-Election 2016, and will be contesting Alyn & Deeside AM (Welsh Assembly) in Feb 2018. It polled 1.2% which is the same level as UKIP. It beat Ankrit Love, whose Wiki page exists, despite only getting 34 votes (not 241). There is strong evidence of MI5 / Media manipulation in Batley', as English Independence gets almost no coverage at all. All candidates were described as 'far-right', even though 2 were from pakistan and bangladesh. References to the EI candidate are being deleted - notably the Yorkshire Post Oct 2016.
Wiki's process to set-up political parties is extremely complex, as including templates, regions etc.
A7 says 'Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way'.
Please use these sources to create a party stub, or send the material back to me, so I may continue creating my page, which I was part way through. ----EnglishIndy — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishIndy (talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@EnglishIndy: I reviewed the sources and found mention neither of the EN party or the By-Elections Protests, which was the name under which the article was created. If I were to restore it to draft space, what is the name of the organization? —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Request
Can you please hide the revision at [22] because it is full of gross and insulting content. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Megerflit reported by User:Home Lander (Result: ). This is regarding the above. Thank you. Home Lander (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Home Lander (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
nnn_my_own_personal_photograph_taken_by_me_of_Rumer.jpg){kind=link}
